In this day and age, I don't think "well-regulated militia" applies. Back in the 1700s, you couldn't deploy a Federal army in a matter of hours. If Spain decided to overrun Georgia(which happened while under British rule), there was no quick way to assist them as a country. Of course, this applied to any state. And, naturally, a band of criminals could ransack an entire town before outside help could arrive(or even know of it). So people had to have the ability to defend themselves.

So, while well-regulated militia is obsolete, I don't think the ability to defend oneself is. That's why the 2nd Amendment is still relevant.

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/31/2013 8:46:00 AM (view original):In this day and age, I don't think "well-regulated militia" applies. Back in the 1700s, you couldn't deploy a Federal army in a matter of hours. If Spain decided to overrun Georgia(which happened while under British rule), there was no quick way to assist them as a country. Of course, this applied to any state. And, naturally, a band of criminals could ransack an entire town before outside help could arrive(or even know of it). So people had to have the ability to defend themselves.

So, while well-regulated militia is obsolete, I don't think the ability to defend oneself is. That's why the 2nd Amendment is still relevant.

Nice selective interpretation of the Constitution. Typical move, pick and choose the parts you insist are absolute, and totally ignore the parts that suggest options contrary to your position. I will see your obsoleteness of a well-regulated militia since that no longer applies, and raise you the ability to own the firearms the founding fathers had experience with...muzzle-loaders.

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/31/2013 8:46:00 AM (view original):In this day and age, I don't think "well-regulated militia" applies. Back in the 1700s, you couldn't deploy a Federal army in a matter of hours. If Spain decided to overrun Georgia(which happened while under British rule), there was no quick way to assist them as a country. Of course, this applied to any state. And, naturally, a band of criminals could ransack an entire town before outside help could arrive(or even know of it). So people had to have the ability to defend themselves.

So, while well-regulated militia is obsolete, I don't think the ability to defend oneself is. That's why the 2nd Amendment is still relevant.

So is it fair to say that the Second Amendment should not necessarily be interpreted and applied in exactly the same way in 2013 as it was in 1789, because the world has changed?

I certainly thinks it's fair. Over my last 1000 posts on this entire debate, I've never said that any 230 y/o document should be interpreted the same way as it was when it was written.

My argument has always been "Tell me what you want and what you hope to accomplish by interpreting the 2nd Amendment the way you do." And, quite frankly, the "BAN HCAW" group has fallen miserably short in explaining their side.

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/31/2013 8:46:00 AM (view original):In this day and age, I don't think "well-regulated militia" applies. Back in the 1700s, you couldn't deploy a Federal army in a matter of hours. If Spain decided to overrun Georgia(which happened while under British rule), there was no quick way to assist them as a country. Of course, this applied to any state. And, naturally, a band of criminals could ransack an entire town before outside help could arrive(or even know of it). So people had to have the ability to defend themselves.

So, while well-regulated militia is obsolete, I don't think the ability to defend oneself is. That's why the 2nd Amendment is still relevant.

Nice selective interpretation of the Constitution. Typical move, pick and choose the parts you insist are absolute, and totally ignore the parts that suggest options contrary to your position. I will see your obsoleteness of a well-regulated militia since that no longer applies, and raise you the ability to own the firearms the founding fathers had experience with...muzzle-loaders.

If you can promise me that I'll be robbed and killed by a man wielding a muzzle-loader, I completely agree.

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/31/2013 8:46:00 AM (view original):In this day and age, I don't think "well-regulated militia" applies. Back in the 1700s, you couldn't deploy a Federal army in a matter of hours. If Spain decided to overrun Georgia(which happened while under British rule), there was no quick way to assist them as a country. Of course, this applied to any state. And, naturally, a band of criminals could ransack an entire town before outside help could arrive(or even know of it). So people had to have the ability to defend themselves.

So, while well-regulated militia is obsolete, I don't think the ability to defend oneself is. That's why the 2nd Amendment is still relevant.

So is it fair to say that the Second Amendment should not necessarily be interpreted and applied in exactly the same way in 2013 as it was in 1789, because the world has changed?

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/31/2013 8:46:00 AM (view original):In this day and age, I don't think "well-regulated militia" applies. Back in the 1700s, you couldn't deploy a Federal army in a matter of hours. If Spain decided to overrun Georgia(which happened while under British rule), there was no quick way to assist them as a country. Of course, this applied to any state. And, naturally, a band of criminals could ransack an entire town before outside help could arrive(or even know of it). So people had to have the ability to defend themselves.

So, while well-regulated militia is obsolete, I don't think the ability to defend oneself is. That's why the 2nd Amendment is still relevant.

Nice selective interpretation of the Constitution. Typical move, pick and choose the parts you insist are absolute, and totally ignore the parts that suggest options contrary to your position. I will see your obsoleteness of a well-regulated militia since that no longer applies, and raise you the ability to own the firearms the founding fathers had experience with...muzzle-loaders.

This interpretation was handed down by the supreme court. They determined, in the majority opinion (I can't remember the case off the top of my head), that the term "right of the people" trumps the term "well-regulated militia". You can argue that the Supreme Court's inerpretation was incorrect, but it's not an argument that's being pulled out of thin air.

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/31/2013 8:46:00 AM (view original):In this day and age, I don't think "well-regulated militia" applies. Back in the 1700s, you couldn't deploy a Federal army in a matter of hours. If Spain decided to overrun Georgia(which happened while under British rule), there was no quick way to assist them as a country. Of course, this applied to any state. And, naturally, a band of criminals could ransack an entire town before outside help could arrive(or even know of it). So people had to have the ability to defend themselves.

So, while well-regulated militia is obsolete, I don't think the ability to defend oneself is. That's why the 2nd Amendment is still relevant.

So is it fair to say that the Second Amendment should not necessarily be interpreted and applied in exactly the same way in 2013 as it was in 1789, because the world has changed?

No.

The same threat of a tyranical government exists today.

The people need the ability to arm themselves outside of the scope of the Federal Government.

The 2nd Amendment isnt about giving power to the Federal Government. Just like all the other amendments it is about limiting the power of the Federal Government.

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/31/2013 8:46:00 AM (view original):In this day and age, I don't think "well-regulated militia" applies. Back in the 1700s, you couldn't deploy a Federal army in a matter of hours. If Spain decided to overrun Georgia(which happened while under British rule), there was no quick way to assist them as a country. Of course, this applied to any state. And, naturally, a band of criminals could ransack an entire town before outside help could arrive(or even know of it). So people had to have the ability to defend themselves.

So, while well-regulated militia is obsolete, I don't think the ability to defend oneself is. That's why the 2nd Amendment is still relevant.

So is it fair to say that the Second Amendment should not necessarily be interpreted and applied in exactly the same way in 2013 as it was in 1789, because the world has changed?

No.

The same threat of a tyranical government exists today.

The people need the ability to arm themselves outside of the scope of the Federal Government.

The 2nd Amendment isnt about giving power to the Federal Government. Just like all the other amendments it is about limiting the power of the Federal Government.

It annoys the **** out of me that we agree on some things and he spouts that nonsense every other day. Makes me want to buy some hemp sandals, a knit cap, hang at the coffee shop every day while reading poetry and spout liberal bullshit to anyone who'll listen.